Wetpixel D800 camera review

The amazing amount of resolution offered by the D800 has a significant downside. Each RAW file produced by the camera has a file size of about 40MB. This is, in turn, has two negative effects. Firstly, computers must have sufficient power to manipulate large amounts of information when processing images, and second, hard drive capacity gets used up very quickly.

To test download speeds, I shot 100 images and then used a USB 2 card reader to ingest them images Lightroom 4. In the first experiment, I was using a 2009 MacPro tower with a Lacie USB3 card connected to a Lexar USB3 reader and a Lexar 32GB 400 X UDMA compact Flash card. In the second, I was using the same tower and card with a USB2 card reader. Render times were (unsuprisingly) identical at 3.5 minutes. I also tested a 2009 MacBook Pro laptop with a firewire 800 card reader.

The results are as follows:

USB3 card reader.

USB2 card reader.

1.50 minutes.

4.33 minutes.

Download times for 100 images with Mac Pro tower.

Firewire 800 card reader.

8.23 minutes.

Download times for 100 images with MacBook Pro laptop.

The same 100 images gave a total file size of 4.39 GB on disk. It should be noted that render time was significantly longer on the MacBook, which reflects its lesser power.

Whilst the above examples are interesting, it seems to me that they miss the true significance of this camera. Yes, file sizes are very big, and will clog a pipeline that does not have significant capacity (power or size). For those whose workflow involves shooting in RAW + JPEG modes, this will fill your drives even faster! Against that, computer power and hard drive space is improving significantly, and becoming more and more economical. I can see that drawback of trying to shoot a field assignment with many thousands of images when each file is around 40MB, and perhaps this is not the camera for that task, however, I feel that the advantages of the amount of information that this camera captures far outweigh the drawbacks.

Where it is significant is in the choice of memory that is used with the camera. Faster and bigger cards do affect buffer times and will allow more shots to be captured in bursts for fast action. Although rare, situation do exist underwater where being able to shoot a few more images may make a difference. Having said that, performance difference is minimal in shooting, with 1000 x cards adding perhaps a couple of extra images before the camera’s buffer fills.

There is no doubt that Compact Flash cards do write significantly faster than SD. This is definitely the case with the D800. I would suggest assigning a large capacity CF card as your primary memory. This needs to be 32GB or more in size.

Faster cards also decrease ingest times, so for people shooting large numbers of images, this may well be another factor to consider. In addition, fast firewire,USB 3 or Thunderbolt card readers are necessary accessories for use with this camera. Broadly speaking, buy the biggest capacity, fastest cards you can afford!

(2) Shooting to crop.

The large file sizes do have some advantages. One of these is the ability to deliberately discard significant amounts of image information and still be able to produce images with sufficient resolution to allow printing at a large size and with fine details.

Using the camera’s resolution gives amazing results even on tight crops.

This is further complicated by the camera’s ability to be used in DX mode, effectively a crop version, where only 16 megapixels of the available 36 are used. This allows the use of DX lenses, perhaps most interestingly the venerable Tokina 10-17mm fisheye zoom. It also potentially restores the 1.5 X magnification advantage for macro shots.

The relationship between resolution and image size is not linear, as it is an area (or pixel density) measure, rather than a straightforward proportional sum. The D800’s sensor measures 24 x 35.9mm with a resolution in FX mode of 7360 x 4912 pixels. In DX crop mode, the area of sensor used is 4800 x 3200 pixels. The actual pixel size and their performance is identical, so the advantages in high ISO and tonal range will carry through even when shooting in DX.

Practically, using the camera in DX mode causes a cropping boundary to appear in the viewfinder. In FX mode, the camera provides a 100% view in the viewfinder, in DX mode, all that is available is a proportion of this.

The red box denotes the DX framing box in the D800’s viewfinder.

The above illustration does show a potential advantage of the DX image area mode. The whole image area is filled by the focus points, allowing a sharp image even if the subject is in the corners of the frame.

The use of the Tokina 10-17mm lens with the D800 does seem to test the lens’s performance. In ideal circumstances in DX mode, it can produce very pleasing image quality.

The D800’s fantastic tonal range is available even in DX mode.

But in more challenging conditions, it seems to lose sharpness a bit. On the forums are some interesting comparisons with this lens, and it would seem that the D800 can tend to out resolve it even in DX mode.

A 100% crop of the above image. Shot in DX image area mode. The Tokina 10-17mm fisheye can struggle optically with the available resolution.

Beyond this, shooting in a cropped mode means that you are losing significant image data. Quantifiably, in DX mode the shooter is choosing to discard 20MP of available image information. Whilst available lens, port or housing choices may force the decision, I can see little advantage in shooting in DX mode, when you can shoot in FX and crop as appropriate later.

A tight crop on this hermit crab still gives a very acceptable file size.

For macro photography, there is a feeling that DX is more suited as this “enhances” the magnification effect by 1.5 times. Effectively, this increases the focal length of your lens, so a 60mm becomes an effective 90mm, and a 105mm becomes a 150mm etc. I think that this may well have been the case when resolution was an issue. With 36MP, the shooter can crop his or her photographs by half and still retain 18 megapixels of information, Given that most publications are happy with files at 12MP, this should be more than enough. With DX, you would gain a 1/3 magnification advantage, but by cropping the 36MP FX image in half, you can still create tighter compositions with more resolution.

There will, of course, be instances like competitions that will not allow cropping, and DX will undoubtedly be better for macro in these, but outside of this, it is hard to conceive a situation where it would be advantageous not to use the camera’s full resolution.

I would suggest to take a look first at:
www.lenstip.com
www.photozone.de
www.the-digital-picture.com
www.kenrockwell.com
etc....Posted by Andrej Belic on 2012-09-24 08:52:12

Thanks Andrej; it would be nice to see some UW tests by the pro's comparing these various DX lenses on the D800 body. In the range of macro to wide-angle. So see if the more expensive lense is worth the money!Posted by albert kok on 2012-09-23 14:07:05

Sorry: Canon 8-15Posted by Andrej Belic on 2012-09-23 11:00:45

The Tokina at 15-17 mm gives mediocre results (25 - 35 lp/mm) so it is ok to use it on FX. If You shave it You get something similiar to a round fisheye, but You don't need to do it if You stay above 15 mm.
Compared to other fisheyes it is way inferior. Here is my recommendation:
1. Nikonos RS 13 mm converted to use it on Nikon DSLR. FX
2. Canon 10-15 mm zoom. FX and DX
2. Nikon 10.5 mm. DX
3. Sigma 15 mm. FX
3. Sigma 10 mm. DX
4. Nikon 16mm. FXPosted by Andrej Belic on 2012-09-23 10:45:56

As an amateur I dont want to dig to deeply in these technical matters, but I hope my following idea is correct. Using the Tokina 10-17 in the DX mode on the D800 would give you approximately the same result and resolution (pixel density) as using this lense in a cropped sensor camera like the D7000. Switching to the D800 FX mode gives you an image with strong vignetting in the corner, if the Tokina is set at 10 mm. You can take the black corners away by cropping afterwards. Which gives you almost the same result as the same shot taken in the DX mode. But in the FX mode you are pobably more flexible in selecting the part of the image you want to cut out. A subsequent question is if the optical quality of the Tokina 10-17 is inferior to that of more expensive full frame fish-eye lenses?
Cheers AlPosted by albert kok on 2012-09-23 03:27:57

I see, then using the D800 with a shaven Tokina 10-17 in the FX mode would give you a full frame fisheye zoom at 36 mp? Did anyone actually compare in open water the D800 with the Tokina at (say) 10-12 mm with a more expensive full frame fisheye lense? I am especially referring to wide angle and wide angle macro shots.Posted by albert kok on 2012-09-22 12:39:28

Asa far as I recall this was only the case with FXPosted by Andrej Belic on 2012-09-22 11:21:38

Back to the Tokina 10-17..did anyone mention that using this lense in the DX mode requires prior 'shaving' of the lense hood? See:
http://www.360pano.de/en/tokina-sigma-nikon.htmlPosted by albert kok on 2012-09-21 16:16:21

Yes, actually if You take the rear filter element out I'm certain that You can get sharp focus from the dome surface on. At 5.6 it's already as corner sharp as a 9" dome. From f11 to f22 You get the same depth of field characteristics as with a 4" dome, from the dome to infinity. The weight is 1 kg and it's very small and handy. I've posted a review yesterday to Adam Hanlon. I hope he's going to publish it soon.Posted by Andrej Belic on 2012-08-30 13:39:10

Regarding the 13mm. Wouldn't the 13mm let you take those close focus wide angle shots? Its a very long time since I last used one but I remember that it focused super-close and was relatively easy to light due to the dome modest size. I think that could give it an edge... just thinking.Posted by EspenRekdal on 2012-08-30 10:50:33

I agree with Adam's comment that using DX mode to crop macro offers no advantage over Shooting FX images and just cropping the image later. Get as close as you can, shoot it and if you need to crop a bit later, you have the resolution to handle it. There is a big advantage, however, to the DX mode crop when shooting macro is if you shoot video! This is a big reason that I jumped ship from Canon back to Nikon with a D800. As I work in Lembeh strait, I shoot loads of Macro video. You can't crop video without losing quality. But if you "crop" by switching to the DX mode, you are still getting 1920x1080 video so you can make critters 1.5x larger with no quality loss!Posted by FishTales on 2012-08-29 21:35:06

And there is a difference between the Nikonos RS fisheye and a housed one.
I'm not sure about the other Nikonos lenses like the 50 mm or the 28 mm but I want try it out to see by myself and it's technically possible.Posted by Andrej Belic on 2012-08-29 15:13:57

The 20-35 is too large for all housings, even for the Nauticam because there has to be a waterproof adapter around it (housing-adapter bayonet and Nikonos RS o ring - adapter bayonet) and the Nauticam port is too small for the lens and the adapter. But since it's larger than the Subal or Seacam it can house the 50 mm macro lens.
The 13 mm Fisheye and the 28 mm go with all housing brands.Posted by Andrej Belic on 2012-08-29 15:08:15

I greatly look forward to the results Andrej.
I still have the 20-35mm, which I think would be the most interesting by far, although the land 20-35mm it was based on is hardly a lusted after lens these days. However - I think the zoom knob might get in the way of mounting in some housings.
I don't see the point with the 50mm as I am sure it would be inferior to the AF-S 60mm. And I don't think the fisheye would be enough of an advantage either as housed fisheyes work perfectly well. The Aumann 18mm (which I 've never tried) was a lens (now an old lens) behind a dome, so I don't see that offering any advantages.
But I do really look forward to your tests.Posted by Alex Mustard on 2012-08-29 09:10:31

How about using Nikonos RS lenses with a 36 MP sensor? I have modified them so they can be used with regular Nikon cameras and I've already built adapters so they are waterproof with housed cameras.Posted by Andrej Belic on 2012-08-29 08:55:25

Excellent review, Adam. Thank you so much for your hard work.Posted by Alex Mustard on 2012-08-29 04:04:25

Thanks AdamPosted by Scubysnaps on 2012-07-10 08:08:20

Are there really people out there using Tokina 10-17 and a converter?
FunnyPosted by Andrej Belic on 2012-06-28 17:31:29

I'm impressed by the "evolutionary" feel of the D800: I've set up my new toy in a couple of hours, and even made inroads into making video recording work.
It's very comfortable in the hand.
It arrived a lot faster than expected: I wonder how fast a housing will be?
In reply to John, I wonder if shooting and shooting is part of Alex's recipe for bright, idiosyncratic, and stimulating images (apart from experience, talent and time underwater, of course)?Posted by tdpriest on 2012-06-27 20:33:18

Duxy reports recording 1500 images in a week in the Red Sea. Alex M says he recorded 1000 images in two days the UK this week.
I was 35mm film trained. Maybe it made me more discerning. I press the button far less often so a 16GB card in a D800 seems quite adequate to me.
As I said elsewhere, like David Lean, I don't shoot anything I don't intend to use.Posted by John Bantin on 2012-06-27 07:55:17

You love it Tim :)Posted by Alex_Tattersall on 2012-06-27 07:47:01

Thanks,Adam!
After my recent sad loss (pace Digigreen) I have been investigating an upgrade rather than just carrying on with 2010 technology. I think I can get a lot from the D800, and that it will push me to tighten up my focus and composition. Mostly I want one for toy-value, having failed to learn from my buddy in the Sudan who brought along TWO D3s...
... but seemed to enjoy taking snapshots whilst (prior to the sad loss in some 500m of water) I was struggling to bracket focus, strobes, composition etc, etc...
... I am haunted by Alsky72, and I shall NEVER escape the curse of the black housing, it seems!Posted by tdpriest on 2012-06-15 11:28:13

Andrej, I only take issue with your word 'awful' in describing the Tokina. I agree it may not be the lens best suited for bringing out the absolute best in a camera like the D800, but it is certainly capable of excellent, extremely sharp images, with any camera from 6 to 36MP, including the D800.Posted by loftus on 2012-06-14 22:31:04

There are also large good looking prints from 6 MP cameras. The photographer makes the picture, not the lens or the camera. Maybe the reputation of the Tokina stems from the time when 6 MP cameras were up to date and the Tokina was sufficient.
Regarding new lenses for Nikon we'll see what will come up next...Posted by Andrej Belic on 2012-06-14 16:31:45

At 3 times the price, one would certainly expect the 8-15 to be significantly better I agree, but I have 24"x36" prints on my wall taken with the Tokina that show excellent detail no matter what the tests show.
For the D800, in FX mode I think both these lenses are of limited use.Posted by loftus on 2012-06-14 15:38:41

Regarding the Tokina:
A Tokina at 10 mm resolves some 15-20 line pairs per mm at the edge and some 25-30 lp/mm at the center. However at 14-17 mm it gets better to an almost acceptable 25-35 lp/mm. Very good lenses resolve 40 - 55 lp/mm (like the Canon 8-15 or Sigma 8-16 DX or Nikon 14-24).
A Nikon D7000 or a cropped Nikon D800 has 68 lp/mm. These tests (link below) perfectly coincide with my personal experience. I bought a Tokina - since I heard so many good things about it - and used it for only one dive. Afterwards I sold it immediately. It would be optimal to use lenses that coincide with the sensor's resolution capabilities.
http://www.lenstip.com/19.4-Lens_review-Tokina_AT-X_107_DX_AF_Fish-Eye_10-17_mm_f_3.5-4.5_Image_resolution.htmlPosted by Andrej Belic on 2012-06-14 14:46:16

Just looked at a few images; for example a full daylight scene of a lake with trees and a rowboat etc 39.24MB. So yes 30MB is probably optimistic, but just under 40 seems to be the normPosted by loftus on 2012-06-14 12:53:43

The few I just looked at were sunrises - 38MBPosted by loftus on 2012-06-14 12:27:14

My D800 RAW files are 43-47MB - depending on detail. I guess you could get sub 40MB with a completely black scene - can't see how you get to 30MB.Posted by Alex Mustard on 2012-06-14 11:36:49

Yeah, but most use lossless compression - files seem to be about 30- 40MB or so on average.Posted by loftus on 2012-06-14 10:48:17

p435 of the D800 manual: NEF uncompressed 14-bit 74.4MBPosted by John Bantin on 2012-06-14 09:50:16

Hmmm; hardly think the Tokina is awful! Some pretty awesome images out there with it. It does have some chromatic aberration issues etc, but still a very useful lens. What we really need is a new version of the the Pentax full frame fisheye zoom from Tokina. My favorite focal length is the long end of the 10-17 on DX.Posted by loftus on 2012-06-14 08:12:34

@ John-how did you get it to 75MB? Quality in RAW settings? I'm intrigued.Posted by Adam Hanlon on 2012-06-14 07:31:55

That's a very good point with the pre-download selsction. The same thought occured to me.
I think it's also time to get rid of the awful quality of the Tokina 10-17 - I complained about it a long time ago. Either press Tokina to make something better or crop the Sigma 15 mm or use the Canon 8-15.
Maybe Nikon will provide something new. The current 16 mm fisheye is 20 years old.Posted by Andrej Belic on 2012-06-14 07:19:41

One thing I have noticed with this camera, I am much more selective about what I download in the first place. So when the preview loads I immediately deselect the crap (which is most of the shots) and then download the remainder for review. After downloading and closer review, a whole lot more stuff is deleted forever than before.Posted by loftus on 2012-06-14 06:46:05

With max. quality settings, a RAW file is 75Mb!Posted by John Bantin on 2012-06-14 06:38:26

Something I noticed the other night, is that when you shoot in DX mode, the live view is displayed full size. So shoot live view, and no viewfinder crop.Posted by loftus on 2012-06-14 06:30:04

Enjoyed the latest section, Adam. I agree with you about shooting to crop making more sense than using DX mode. Especially with the loss of viewfinder size in DX mode. It is worth noting that synch speeds are 1/400th in 1.2x crop and 1/500th in DX mode - if using electronic flash synch, rather than optical synch. AlexPosted by Alex Mustard on 2012-06-14 03:53:12

Another nice thing - your macro shot shows the Nikon synchs nicely at 1/320. I routinely consider the fastest synch speed to be the FP setting of 1/320 not 1/250Posted by loftus on 2012-06-01 07:28:36

That's a lot of money you've cost me!Posted by John Bantin on 2012-06-01 07:08:19

Thanks for these detailed tests on image quality, Adam. That final image on P2 is one of the most impressive showing how much detail can be recovered from shadows. Ground breaking!
BTW - thanks for doing realistic high ISO tests. Are the crops showing noise from the plane shots at 100%? I would expect the crops to show a smaller area of the plane given the high resolution of the sensor.Posted by Alex Mustard on 2012-06-01 01:20:44

Thanks Adam; can't wait to get my D800 underwater in a few weeks. I think this is really an amazing camera. Nikon led the way with high ISO a few years ago that changed the way people thought about shooting available light; the high DR is going to expand the possibilities yet again.Posted by loftus on 2012-05-31 19:58:03

Thanks for spending the time to review this camera. Looking forward to more.Posted by blackbird on 2012-05-31 01:51:38

Child says D800, Adult says D7000. Which is it gonna be? Will the lack of FX lens mean we're "stuck" with the D7000 for underwater?Posted by pixelnut on 2012-05-30 22:59:47

I would like to say cracking job Adam. The D800 is a joy to have in your hand. It feels better to hold than the D700 and to get to all of the controls it"s simplistic your eye does not need to leave the viewer.Posted by goose on 2012-05-30 14:08:38

Gimme more!Posted by Andrej Belic on 2012-05-29 20:41:04

Chomping at the bit for more! Keep it coming, Adam!Posted by Alex Mustard on 2012-05-29 11:16:31